SPA/151/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 2031 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

                       SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
                                   AND
                        SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

7th JULY, 2022

SPECIAL APPEAL No. 151 OF 2021 Between:

Neelam Sanjay Pal .......Appellant

and

State of Uttarakhand and others. ...Respondents

Counsel for the appellant. : Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)

The present Appeal is directed against the order

dated 26.03.2021 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ

Petition (M/S) No. 763 of 2021. The appellant was not a

party to the proceedings wherein the impugned order had

been passed, i.e. in the case of Pramod Kumar, who was the

petitioner before the Court. The appellant, therefore, seeks

leave to appeal to assail the said order.

2. The case of the appellant is that in the light of the

impugned order, the appellant would also be precluded from raising objections to the process of delimitation. The

impugned order reads as follows:-

"Petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Haridwar.

2. Perusal of record indicates that the said order has been passed by District Magistrate, Haridwar on the direction issued by this Court to decide representation filed by some other villagers. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was not heard in the matter.

3. Having considered the submission made on behalf of petitioner, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Even otherwise also, Panchayati Raj Act does not provide individual hearing to each villager in these matters.

4. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed."

3. In another proceeding pending before us, it was

stated on behalf of the State Election Commission through

counsel that the process of delimitation is already over.

4. Aforesaid being the position, we are not inclined

to interfere with the impugned order.

5. The Application for leave to appeal is, therefore,

rejected. Consequently, the Special Appeal also stands

dismissed.

________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

____________ R.C. KHULBE, J.

Dt: 7th July, 2022 Rathour